‘Wisdom of crowds’: Could political betting swing the US election?

'Wisdom of crowds': Could political betting swing the US election?
Historically, political betting is impressively accurate.

As the 1549 papal conclave dragged on into a second and third month, Venice’s ambassador to the Vatican, Matteo Dandolo, was outraged by insider trading. “It is more than clear that the merchants are very well informed about the state of the poll,” he said, “and that the cardinals’ attendants in Conclave go partners with them in wagers, which thus causes many tens of thousands of crowns to change hands.”
Although the conclave was supposedly secret, Roman traders ran a thriving market in the streets around the Vatican trying to predict the winner. Odds shifted rapidly, and bettors appeared suspiciously well informed and perceptive. Everyone knew the race was wide open, and the original favorite in the crowded field, at 5-to-1 against (or 17% odds), was Cardinal Giovanni Maria del Monte. Ten weeks later, he was elected Pope Julius III as a compromise candidate, but only after opposing cardinals had brought forward a parade of options. Bettors on the streets helped the population understand who was leading, and by spotting early on that Julius might be the inoffensive candidate who would provoke the least opposition, they even guided the cardinals as they tried to break the deadlock.
Prediction markets grew so widespread and so disliked that by the end of the 16th century, Pope Gregory XIV had outlawed them. The penalty for betting on the identity of the next pope was excommunication.
Five centuries later, the urge to bet on elections has not abated. Neither has the whiff of corruption surrounding them, nor the sense that bettors’ money can move not just markets but election results themselves. For centuries there have been cycles of political betting — in 19th century Pall Mall clubs, and in the early 20th century on the floors of the New York and London stock exchanges — punctuated by moves to ban them. As the 2024 presidential campaign drives towards a bitter conclusion, the cycle is repeating.
This time the ultimate authority is not the pope but the US Supreme Court. At present, the US’s biggest political betting markets are offshore. The only legal, regulated entities are nonprofits run as academic experiments with tight limits on how much can be wagered — the best known are the Iowa Electronic Markets and PredictIt.com, which operates in the US under the auspices of Victoria University in New Zealand. Now, the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission is fighting an attempt to set up a legal onshore political futures market, which would allow Americans to take part without limits on how much they can trade.
In the latest round, the for-profit Kalshi futures market won a stay against the CFTC’s ban that cleared the way for a huge experiment. The litigation could go on for years, but Kalshi can run a market on this year’s election, and its odds now appear in huge neon lights above Times Square. This has prompted established brokers to get in on the act; Interactive Brokers also launched political futures trading for the election.
The world’s richest man is paying attention. Earlier this month, Elon Musk urged his followers on the online platform X, which he owns, to follow the offshore venue Polymarket (launched by his former colleague Peter Thiel). “More accurate than polls, as actual money is on the line,” he wrote. At the time, Polymarket showed Donald Trump’s chances at 50.1%. Hours later, and with no relevant news, a still-anonymous French investor made the first of a series of giant trades now totaling some $45 million on a Trump win, pushing his odds way up. Ten days later, with Kamala Harris still ahead in polls of polls, Trump’s chances had surged to 62.2%.
PredictIt, populated mostly by academics limited to stakes of $850, also raised Trump’s chances, but at a much slower pace. The press was more interested in Polymarket. Since Musk’s tweet it has featured in 10 times more news stories than PredictIt. Polymarket’s odds helped change the narrative in markets where far more money is at stake. Treasury yields and share prices both rose, as traders started pricing in a Trump win and the corporate tax cuts that would come with it.

betting odds US elections

The problem of reflexivity
Like all markets, popular prediction markets are prone to what the hedge fund manager George Soros calls “reflexivity.” Rather than just reflecting or reacting to facts on the ground, moves in bonds, stocks or oil markets can actually change that reality. It is this fear that animates opposition to Kalshi. The pressure group Better Markets, an amicus in the CFTC’s suit, asserts that manipulating these markets could shift the facts. Cantrell Dumas, its director of derivatives policy, says that if the markets are taken seriously and show that one candidate is likely to win “people could stay home and not vote for their preferred candidate.”
On the other side, Kalshi’s supporters argue that manipulation is a problem for all markets, and the key is regulation. David Mason, general counsel of PredictIt and a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission argues, “these manipulation problems are dealt with in regulated markets every day. There are trading exclusions; if they have material non-public information then they are prohibited from trading. Kalshi has a long list of people who aren’t allowed to trade.”
But Dumas rejects the comparison. “In a traditional market, if a regulator sees manipulation and takes action, it has remedies. With election manipulation that changes the result, that’s irreparable harm. It’s a fundamental distinction,” he told me.
The excitement since Musk’s tweet looks very much like reflexivity in action. And social change has amplified the potential reflexive power of markets. We are now far more inclined to trust in the “wisdom of crowds.” Most importantly, the Efficient Market Hypothesis, developed in the 1950s and the basis for much modern finance, holds that markets continuously incorporate all information, and so they can’t be consistently beaten, except by insiders who know something others don’t. Central to the argument for investing passively in indexes and exchange-traded funds, this idea can transmogrify into a belief that markets can’t be wrong.
Historically, political betting is impressively accurate. The academics Justin Wolfers and Eric Zitzewitz demonstrated 20 years ago that over history, markets had come closer to getting presidential elections right (with an average error of 1.5%) than the Gallup poll, which was on average off by 2.1%. Market discipline should help experts thrash out a better consensus estimate, and many companies now run internal prediction markets to improve forecasting. Wikipedia and Google have convinced us that crowd-sourcing information can work, and popular culture is saturated with tales of brilliant statisticians, like Michael Lewis’ 2003 book Moneyball on how the Oakland A’s used statistics to spot good players others had missed. Nate Silver, an adviser to Polymarket, made his name as a baseball statistician.
Then there’s what Wall Streeters call the Elaine Garzarelli Effect: We tend to place excessive trust in whichever guru made a good call last time. As a Lehman Brothers investment strategist, Garzarelli brilliantly urged clients to get out of the stock market the week before the Black Monday crash in 1987. That made her one of the most widely quoted strategists on the Street; her words would move markets, and she compiled a good track record. But she was fallible — in December 2007, on the eve of the global financial crisis, she proclaimed that stocks were undervalued by 25% — and people lost interest.
In politics, the offshore Intrade prediction market developed a Garzarelli effect after calling 49 states correctly in 2008, and then all 50 — amid much attention — in 2012. Then regulators shut it down, but other venues rose to replace it. The market odds on a Donald Trump victory were about 35% on election night in 2016.
Betting markets may also have grown more reflexive because the legalization of sports betting has made gambling socially acceptable, while investing looks ever more like gambling. Baseball banned Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose for life over wagering on the sport. Now, Major League Baseball has its own formal spread-betting partner. Investment apps now resemble video games: Robinhood.com drove the meme stock craze of 2021 as people poured stimulus checks, and a lot of political anger, into bets on companies like GameStop Corp. While papal envoys disdained people betting in the street, our current society has little problem with people trading elections on their phones.
Reflexivity is amplified by a constant of human nature; our psychological need for an anchor. We want a number, and once we have one we cling to it, because it gives us an illusion of control. The idea of anchoring has been a staple of behavioral finance since it was first applied to economics by the psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky 50 years ago. Their experiments showed that people’s answers to numeric questions can be skewed just by showing them a number at random before they answer. In the unmoored climate of a polarized election that appears to be in a dead heat, our desire for an anchor will naturally grow.
In the UK’s Brexit referendum, betting markets put the chances that Britons would vote to leave the EU at one in five. Statisticians David Rothschild and Andrew Gelman argued afterwards that there was “a feedback mechanism whereby the betting-market odds reify themselves.” People distrusted polls, they said, but “we do watch the prediction markets, which all sorts of experts have assured us capture the wisdom of crowds.” Pollsters and pundits — and even the arch-Brexiteer Nigel Farage — were “to some extent anchoring themselves off the prediction odds,” and dismissed polls that showed Brexit in the lead. The clue, Rothschild and Gelman argued, was that a “mature prediction market should show measured, but real, swings in prices in response to news,” but the Brexit odds stayed weirdly stable.
Polls closed with the market odds of Brexit at 31%. When they were proved wrong, the pound dropped by more than 10% in a matter of minutes — more than treble its previous worst fall. Brexit looks very much like a classic example of Soros’ reflexivity at work — and on the face of it, suggests that the CFTC is amply justified in trying to keep political betting out of mainstream investment.
Self-fulfilling prophecies
The CFTC’s problem is that the other markets it regulates exist to help manage risks, from fluctuating commodity prices or interest rates to the possibility of a catastrophic hurricane. Investors wish to insure against political surprises — with the fallout from the Brexit vote showing why they might be sensible. So how to allow that, while limiting the chance of either deliberate manipulation or innocent irrational exuberance which, with reflexivity, could turn markets into a tool for changing election results? There are two plausible solutions.
The first, advocated by Kalshi and Polymarket, is to make markets liquid by attracting more money. With billions at stake, no individual can move the market. But for now, while they remain on a smaller scale, whales can make a big splash.
The alternative is to limit liquidity. PredictIt’s $850 limit on stakes thwarts whales. A rich person’s views don’t count for more just because they’re rich. But it’s harder to move the price when genuine news happens, and it reduces the market’s usefulness as a place to manage risk. Limited markets might produce the public good of more robust predictions, but a multi-trillion dollar manager like BlackRock cannot hedge a given election result on PredictIt.
Recent experiences with opening new markets have shown how difficult this can be. In the decade before the global financial crisis, quants spotted that emerging markets and commodity futures tended to gain over time, with a low correlation to stocks and bonds. That sounded like the holy grail for asset allocators, and big institutions piled in. Once they did so, however, they changed the way these markets behaved and interacted. If money moved into copper as a result of a deliberate decision to move out of bonds, for example, it was inevitable that bonds and copper would grow more correlated, which they did. In 2008, stocks, commodities and emerging markets all crashed together.
Similarly, once big financial hedgers and/or wealthy individuals arrive in betting markets, there’s no reason to assume those markets will keep behaving the same way. Treasury bonds, oil or tech stocks are deep markets combining people with many different motivations, and the messages they send should be taken very seriously; Kalshi, Polymarket and others are far from that scale.
There’s also the eternal issue of Garbage In, Garbage Out. Markets synthesize information and give participants an incentive to sniff out fake news. But they aren’t a protection against bad information — if the polls are wrong, markets will be wrong.
If well regulated, political prediction markets might yet provide probabilities that help guide us in times of uncertainty. But like all markets they will be prone to get things wrong, and while they remain largely unregulated, it behooves us to be careful. The threat of excommunication doesn’t deter miscreants the way it once did.



Source link

  • Related Posts

    प्रेस विज्ञप्ति अपने आप में कानून में संशोधन नहीं कर सकती: सुप्रीम कोर्ट

    यह एक प्रतीकात्मक छवि है (तस्वीर क्रेडिट: पीटीआई) नई दिल्ली: एक महत्वपूर्ण फैसले में, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने मंगलवार को कहा कि नीति में बदलाव के संबंध में कैबिनेट के फैसले पर सरकार द्वारा जारी एक प्रेस विज्ञप्ति को उस आधार पर लाभ का दावा करने के लिए कानून के रूप में नहीं माना जा सकता है और अधिसूचना जारी होने पर इसे लागू माना जाएगा। जारी किए गए।न्यायमूर्ति बीआर गवई, न्यायमूर्ति प्रशांत कुमार मिश्रा और न्यायमूर्ति केवी विश्वनाथन की पीठ ने कहा कि सरकार द्वारा प्रेस विज्ञप्ति का मतलब यह नहीं होगा कि मौजूदा कानून या नीति उस दिन बदल जाएगी और यह सरकार द्वारा किया गया एक वादा है और कानून में कोई बदलाव नहीं है। (अपने बल से)। कोर्ट ने की याचिका खारिज कर दी नाभा पावर लिमिटेडजिसने एक नए कैबिनेट फैसले पर प्रेस सूचना ब्यूरो (पीआईबी) द्वारा जारी एक प्रेस विज्ञप्ति के आधार पर राहत मांगी कानूनी व्यवस्था के लिए सीमा शुल्क में छूट मेगा विद्युत परियोजनाओं के लिए.हालाँकि प्रेस विज्ञप्ति 1 अक्टूबर, 2009 को जारी की गई थी, वित्त मंत्रालय ने 11 और 14 दिसंबर, 2009 को अधिसूचनाएँ जारी की थीं और कंपनी ने दलील दी थी कि प्रेस विज्ञप्ति की तारीख पर कानून में संशोधन किया गया माना जाना चाहिए, जिस पर विचार किया जा सकता है। एक “क़ानून” के रूप में.“हमारी सुविचारित राय में, प्रेस विज्ञप्ति ने 01.10.2009 को मौजूदा कानून में कोई बदलाव/संशोधन/निरसन नहीं किया। यह कैबिनेट द्वारा अनुमोदित एक प्रस्ताव की घोषणा थी जिसे उल्लिखित शर्तों की पूर्ति के बाद आकार दिया जाना था। उसमें…क्या अपीलकर्ता यह मान सकता है कि 01.10.2009 की प्रेस विज्ञप्ति ने एक नई कानूनी व्यवस्था निर्धारित की है? हमें नहीं लगता और हम तदनुसार मानते हैं। प्रेस विज्ञप्ति कैबिनेट निर्णय का सारांश है, “न्यायमूर्ति विश्वनाथन, जिन्होंने निर्णय लिखा था बेंच के लिए, कहा.अदालत ने कहा कि यह (प्रेस विज्ञप्ति) भारत संघ द्वारा किया गया सबसे अच्छा वादा था और कानून प्रोप्रियो विगोर (अपनी ताकत से) में कोई…

    Read more

    अल्मोडा दुर्घटना के लिए बस ड्राइवर, कंडक्टर और मालिक पर मामला दर्ज | भारत समाचार

    अल्मोडा दुर्घटना (तस्वीर साभार: पीटीआई) अल्मोडा: अल्मोडा बस हादसे के एक दिन बाद, जिसमें 36 लोगों की मौत हो गई और 27 लोग घायल हो गए, पुलिस ने मंगलवार को वाहन के ड्राइवर, कंडक्टर और मालिक के खिलाफ बिना नाम बताए एफआईआर दर्ज की, “लापरवाही से गाड़ी चलाने, लापरवाही और आपराधिक साजिश” के आरोप में। संयोगवश, 52 वर्षीय ड्राइवर दिनेश सिंह की मौके पर ही मौत हो गई, जबकि कंडक्टर अस्पताल में जिंदगी और मौत से जूझ रहा है।एसएसपी (अल्मोड़ा) देवेंद्र पिंचा ने कहा, “बीएनएस धारा 281 (रैश ड्राइविंग), 106 (1) (लापरवाही से मौत का कारण) और 61 (आपराधिक साजिश) के तहत एक एफआईआर दर्ज की गई थी। मृतक ड्राइवर का उल्लेख किया गया है यह सुनिश्चित करने के लिए कि प्रक्रिया व्यापक है, और इस त्रासदी की ओर ले जाने वाली परिस्थितियों का पता लगाने के लिए केवल एक जांच के हिस्से के रूप में एफआईआर दर्ज करें।”मामले से जुड़े एक पुलिस अधिकारी ने कहा, “आखिरकार ड्राइवर के खिलाफ मामला खत्म किया जा सकता है। आने वाले दिनों में बस मालिक और कंडक्टर से पूछताछ की जाएगी ताकि यह समझा जा सके कि क्या वाहन के रखरखाव या इसके पालन में कोई लापरवाही हुई थी।” सुरक्षा नियम।”पंजीकरण संख्या UK12PA-0061 वाली बस अत्यधिक भरी हुई थी, सोमवार को वह नियंत्रण खो बैठी और अल्मोडा के सल्ट क्षेत्र में कुपी के पास 100 मीटर गहरी खाई में गिर गई, जिससे हाल के दिनों में राज्य में सबसे खराब सड़क त्रासदियों में से एक हुई। Source link

    Read more

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You Missed

    सार्वजनिक रूप से महिला की तस्वीर लेना ताक-झांक नहीं है: HC | भारत समाचार

    सार्वजनिक रूप से महिला की तस्वीर लेना ताक-झांक नहीं है: HC | भारत समाचार

    प्रेस विज्ञप्ति अपने आप में कानून में संशोधन नहीं कर सकती: सुप्रीम कोर्ट

    प्रेस विज्ञप्ति अपने आप में कानून में संशोधन नहीं कर सकती: सुप्रीम कोर्ट

    सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने पुणे पोर्श दुर्घटना में नाबालिग के पिता को गिरफ्तारी से पहले जमानत देने से इनकार किया | भारत समाचार

    सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने पुणे पोर्श दुर्घटना में नाबालिग के पिता को गिरफ्तारी से पहले जमानत देने से इनकार किया | भारत समाचार

    सीएफओ का कहना है कि कमजोर मांग के बावजूद ह्यूगो बॉस चीन में विकास करना चाहता है

    सीएफओ का कहना है कि कमजोर मांग के बावजूद ह्यूगो बॉस चीन में विकास करना चाहता है

    अल्मोडा दुर्घटना के लिए बस ड्राइवर, कंडक्टर और मालिक पर मामला दर्ज | भारत समाचार

    अल्मोडा दुर्घटना के लिए बस ड्राइवर, कंडक्टर और मालिक पर मामला दर्ज | भारत समाचार

    उत्तराखंड सरकार ने बच्चे को ‘गोद’ लिया | भारत समाचार

    उत्तराखंड सरकार ने बच्चे को ‘गोद’ लिया | भारत समाचार